I have removed What do you think part as it may depict that you're asking for opinions, which may invite Close Votes.
– A J♦Mar 3 '17 at 7:27

Its not the 12'th Man, he was the 8th Juror and when you add the word "really" it becomes a subject of discussion and speculation just the way it was in that movie.
– Sudip BiswasMar 3 '17 at 7:39

As we're getting answers re-stating the 'legal situation' I think the question ought to be reworded as "did he actually do it?" which is 'legally' different from "was he guilty?"
– TetsujinMar 3 '17 at 8:37

2 Answers
2

We're never told either way. The movie is more focused on prejudice than anything else, and how some jurors wanted him to be guilty based on his background. In the end, a reasonable doubt is planted in everyone's minds, and according to jury instructions that reasonable doubt must result in a NOT GUILTY verdict, however no conclusive evidence is ever given as to the defendant's true guilt or innocence.

Yes this is the point. The Jury is there to decide based on the cases put by prosecution and defence, not personal belief or bias. Henry Fonda's character slowly chips away at each jurors conviction until they all realise the case for was not made conclusively, so the boy should be found not guilty. We can never actually judge guilt (and nor should we).
– The Wandering Dev ManagerMar 3 '17 at 14:47

Judge: To continue, you've listened to a long and complex case, murder
in the first degree. Premeditated murder is the most serious charge
tried in our criminal courts. You've listened to the testimony, you've
had the law read to you and interpreted as it applies in this case,
it's now your duty to sit down and try to separate the facts from the
fancy. One man is dead, another man's life is at stake, if there's a
reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused, uh a
reasonable doubt, then you must bring me a verdict of "Not Guilty".
If, however, there's no reasonable doubt, then you must, in good
conscience, find the accused "Guilty". However you decide, your
verdict must be unanimous. In the event that you find the accused
"Guilty", the bench will not entertain a recommendation for mercy. The
death sentence is mandatory in this case. You're faced with a grave
responsibility, thank you, gentlemen.

Here, the Judge clearly defines the implications of "GUILTY" and "NOT GUILTY" whereby comes the most important phrase in this movie "REASONABLE DOUBT". As conclusively there was a reasonable doubt, therefore the boy was not guilty because the jurors had to abide by the definition supplied by the Judge

I think you're on the wrong tack here. The question is 'did he actually do it?' not 'was he found to be guilty or not?'
– TetsujinMar 3 '17 at 8:39

@Tetsujin..Sorry Sir, but I do differ here. Firstly because, bringing the question ""did he actually do it"....is clearly intending to bring forth a discussion and speculation and this is not such forum for a opinion based discussion. Secondly, if we need to address that question? we HAVE to go by the way GUILT/INNOCENCE has been defined by the Judge. If you do not feel so, then we are just going to have an identical discussion, just the way the film portrayed.
– Sudip BiswasMar 3 '17 at 8:47

3

"We are never told" is also an answer - & in this case, the correct answer. Neither the jury's decision nor the judges comments are relevant to the answer required.
– TetsujinMar 3 '17 at 8:56

"I can't decide either the boy was guilty or not?"...don't you feel this question itself would have sounded relevant if our user was one of the jurors? This simple fact that, we were not shown the evidence, all we got from this movie was interactions, expressions of characters. Then how can this question, in itself be relevant? So I answered it from the context of the movie itself.
– Sudip BiswasMar 3 '17 at 9:01

3

It doesn't matter whether you can decide or not. The question resolves to "are we told, in the movie, if he actually did it?". This has nothing to do with whether he was found guilty or not.
– TetsujinMar 3 '17 at 9:23